rodshaw
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
JordanBI think you have a point when you say that many in the 'first world' are too caught up in their life cycles to want to be bothered about socialist politics. Or any politics for that matter. It could be said that many of the better off are downright complacent and see themselves as having done very well out of the current system.But if you have to be hungry and impoverished to want socialism, then by implication there would be more socialists in the third world than there are in the developed countries. But looking at the SPGB and its companion parties, I would say the opposite is the case (even though there aren't many of us).Members of the World Socialist Movement come from all walks of life. Anyone can get the message, it's just a pity so few have.
When education is freed from the constraints of capitalistic, profit-based demands, it's bound to become a lot more fluid and amorphous. Those who enjoy teaching and mentoring would no doubt enjoy their new liberated roles in a socialist society.But I think a distinction needs to be drawn between education and training. 'Vocational' training will still be required in a socialist society, and will be as strict as necessary for the job in hand. Nobody wants to be flown by a half-trained pilot, or advised by an incompetent surveyor.Education – which could broadly be thought of as self-improvement – I see as being much more fluid than at present. Would there be a set of commonly-agreed targets to achieve, like the three Rs, which were seen as needing to be taught in some kind of school? Possibly, but I think this kind of stuff, and other 'basic' things that were useful to know, would be mostly soaked up from a person's environment as they grew.I would not envisage the type of formal schooling that drills into unwilling pupils by the hour the laws of physics, the rules of grammar, the history of kings and queens or the differences between different kinds of rocks.It's only in the capitalist era that our industrial-style schooling system has existed.
A similar question often occurs to me.Of course it's important that we recognise the current power of the state as the enforcer of class rule and that socialism will mean its disappearance.But once socialism is on the horizon as a realistic proposition, and the majority of the police and the armed forces have come over to it, a lot of democratic 'socialistic activity' will be taking place at local and regional levels without a state to get in the way much. There will be enough people simply to refuse to do its will, if it still has one. Much of the activity will involve finding practical solutions to problems hitherto unsolvable. Much of it will entail simply not doing things that are done in capitalism – things mostly to do with money and/or coercion, such as not paying for things, not sitting school exams, not putting people in prison, and so on. The state machine, as I see it, won’t as much be conquered as dispersed. Once the collective will is a socialist one, the state will already have gone.What is left of the police and armed forces, that a socialist society can use, will be those elements involved with logistical organisation, say for organising food banks and relief operations. Former judges, JPs and ombudsmen may be useful at helping to moderate meetings and settle arguments. Former schoolteachers will still have an educational role. And so on.
Is supporting or paying money to a charity reformist? Is it always pointless from a working class perspective?I don't mean as an organisation or as a policy, but as an individual.
He then presents a string of reformist proposals. Maybe he's been put up to it! As if it would make any difference what background the people in charge came from.The Tories have said themselves that they want to reverse this image of a privileged elite always in charge. The article itself says they have introduced more cabinet members from comprehensive schools in an attempt to counter the impression.But whatever the 'impression', of course it's all a smokescreen. They could all be wearing flat caps and come from oop north, as we know it wouldn't make a hap'orth of difference.
We could also be said to be attempting to radicalise young people because we are attempting to radicalise the whole working class.
Just think what governments would be trying if the world socialist movement were bigger, a small but significant minority, say 3 or 4 percent of the population. I had always thought that would be the time to fear clampdowns, but it could be happening much sooner.On their own, Cameron and his cronies could turn out to be particularly nasty, but there you are, workers, you get what you vote for.They have been on the news saying they want to appeal more to the average working person. Then in an amazing feat of doublespeak, in the same news programme, they announce they want to introduce measures to limit the right to strike.Coupled with their stance on extremism and their desire to abolish the Human Rights Act for something more 'British', they are certainly hitting the ground running.
If the Money Free Party are in fact anything like the SPGB, as has been suggested in another thread, then maybe we can use them as a gauge of how socialist ideas spread without the use of the S-word. See how many Facebook followers they get compared to us, etc.
Interestingly, I was talking to my wife's nephew about politics a few days before election day. He's doing a politics degree at York Uni and asked me what I thought about the election.So I told him I was a socialist etc. etc., and he fully understood what I was on about. He said, off his own bat, that what had happened in Russia and China had given socialism a bad name. This is from someone under 20. So maybe that politics degree is doing some good.
Young Master Smeet wrote:I did sayQuote:The cry of "The footballers are paid too much" is the cry of management.I didn't say it was workers against management, but the cry of management is a cry in the interest of the owners…
I don't particularly want to labour the point, but it was your first post I was commenting on:
Young Master Smeet wrote:Yes, they're rich, and if they don't piss their incomes up the wall, they'll become capitalists the second it hits the bank. But the fact remains they are workers, wealthy workers, and we're opn their side against the management.I think it's a bit misleading to say that socialists are on the side of the workers against management, most of whom are workers themselves, at least as I understand the term. It's workers against owners.
There's an article reporting an interview with Brand in The Times today. Some of the fatuous questions they ask him, although they don't surprise me, make me want to throw something at them.Would he miss his iPod if giant corporations were dismantled? As if a socialist society would turn back technology 50 years and wouldn't be able to make high-tech gadgets.If he supports the community, why does he live in a big house with a chauffeur and not on an estate? As if we didn't all have to live in capitalism and do the best we can for ourselves.What lack of imagination they show!
Part of the problem is that people are wrapped up in their everyday lives, trying to get through the next day, and mostly don't want to assimilate big ideas, especially when they think they might 'lose all they've worked for' when private property gets abolished. The idea of socialism either seems absurd or too invasive. It makes people insecure, and they back away.But it will happen, one day the tide will turn and people will wonder how on earth they could have been so stupid for not seeing the bleedin' obvious. Just keep plugging away.
